There is an unofficial proposal, first launched nine months ago, with some interesting supporters for a new city of one million people east of Cambridge. Parking spatial aspects of the location, actually the idea has a lot elemental good sense within its conception. But the unashamedly ambitious proposal cuts across current Whitehall thinking, pays little regard to the views of planning professionals and so far as I know has attracted neither the endorsement, nor rejection of planning bodies like the RTPI, TCPA, RIBA or bRICS. Silence can be telling. Professional caution is understandable but disappointing. It forfeits leadership of the debate meaning facts and realities are side-lined. So the public focus is ill-informed and in consequence short-sighted: the reverse of what is needed for an intelligent debate. . Is the omission fear of public ridicule? Perhaps it trumps professional recognition that lots of building and lots of land use change are needed in the next few decades to meet the growth needs of the country? At least Shav Malik and Joe Reeve, the two individuals behind Forest City are willing to stand up for their beliefs. Their behaviour in my experience of strategic planning is rare. Too many who know there is a bedrock problem with housing supply, prefer to remain silent. If their livelihoods rest on the broken system, their decision makes commercial sense. It is more difficult to understand the silence of those who see themselves in a leadership role.
The concept of Forest City captures the serious idea of significant new cities around the high growth areas like London. The notion makes a lot of spatial sense, but the intellectual case for their construction remains hidden. Because by definition the potential city locations, which are actually a subservient issue, are always contentious even when the national need to ambitiously build is widely supported. So rational, spatial thinking, or debate has to happen in two levels. First of all, is there is case for several new cities around London? Of which Forest City might be the first? And second, if this need is proven, the second debate must then be directed at the possible locations-usually a hornets nest!
The absolute necessity for this two part and distinctive approach hit me hard this week. Yes, we need lots of new homes (and infrastructure). Whilst this reality is now widely accepted by many, ( a breakthrough achieved by the Starmer administration) as soon as potential locations are discussed a gut fear, summed up by the ‘not near me’, emotion takes over the debate. And the fear leads to one outcome. Silence from local leaders and advisers. Scared by a a lot of noise from nimbies.Whilst it is obvious the merits of a major new city obviously will not be taken seriously without a proposed location, as soon as this aspect is stated a whole raft of new, often premature sore-points emerge, about which opponents of land use change become passionate in their defence of the status quo.
What recently happened makes the point. All the Thames Valley local authorities share a fierce housing supply problem. Following government directives they must find land on which to build lots of new homes. But it is an highly unpopular enterprise with their electorates. Who simply do not want to know. Nor do their leaders. Deciding locations to build is, for local leaders in the south a wicked problem. Recently a local source highlighted vocal opposition to an official proposal to identify land for hundreds of unexpected new homes. Local community and parish leaders, and residents object to the proposal, some, with good reason, saying ‘enough is enough’. Asked whether the council, in conjunction with neighbouring councils would support a radical Thames Valley solution housing solution matching Forest City first produced the question commonplace, but where? Answer: south of Reading on unprotected land the Thames Valley’s version of Forest City can be built. And then asked, could happen, initially there was silence followed by reflection. . Silence is always informative; like spotting the obvious question a report does not address.
‘Not near me’ is one clue to the way ahead. Another clue is Andy Burnham’s BBC Laura Kuenssburgh Panorama interview (27 July 2026) in which he is quoted as saying ‘ the NHS will collapse ‘ if social care is not reformed but he was unable to outline a timeframe on changes. It is a clue, because Burnham knows reaching reality about funding social care will take a lot of time, and encounter a lot of resistance. Vested interests and well-intentioned but blinkered professionals will struggle to think outside their familiar box. Reforming social care means big decisions on funding priorities. Fortunately this financial hurdle is not a barrier with reforming the spatial land use system. Buying in future building land at prices reflecting existing activity on the site is always far less than buying the same land with consent for a new use. But going this route means inventing the Bank of Time, based on the 10+ year rule, in order to acquire future building land at prices which treat landowners with fairness. And this means cross-party cooperation with Kemi Badenoch, with neither side trying to manipulate the rules in advance. So I am encouraged by the story in today’s Guardian (29 July 2026) on the front page saying Andy Burnham is to seek cross-party consensus, over urgent reforms to social care, a reality for strategic planning Forest City style I have long advocated.
Because we cannot ask local leaders to take an active role in placing their local electorates back in the subservient position that commonsense and national survival demand. Reality says Westminster’s political elite must take the lead. Forest City 1 gives them an idea of the objective. Local leaders fear of their electors gives Westminster MPs clues about how to proceed as a united House, placing the future needs of the nation ahead of local fears leading up to the next election. To expect reality to be otherwise is an illusion. Cross-party politics to solve intractable domestic policy issues time has arrived. My hope is that Andy Burnham will take forward the well-intended initiatives Starmer sought, but place them on solid long term foundations which win the meaningful support of other political parties in Westminster. If the professional bodies also now decide to create a platform of debate for ambitious, location specific strategic thinking, that too will be welcome. Once again fingers crossed!
Ian Campbell
29 July 2026
